The Forerunner - The Christian StatesmanA worldwide media ministry equipping college students with Christian apologeticstag:www.forerunner.com,2005:b4f7db3c952314d71e48d97c7bdc2a73/statesmanTextpattern2018-03-16T08:50:24ZJay Rogershttp://www.forerunner.com/Jay Rogers2008-06-27T17:20:13Z2012-03-04T20:56:10ZArticles from The Christian Statesmantag:www.forerunner.com,2008-06-27:b4f7db3c952314d71e48d97c7bdc2a73/1a370bcfab627e722fdbd717ea769d30

Jay Rogers2008-05-01T15:29:53Z2014-03-08T16:12:55ZTwo Views of Civil Government: Puritanism vs. Pietismtag:www.forerunner.com,2008-05-01:b4f7db3c952314d71e48d97c7bdc2a73/830ddd5ffb0060154eacc67dd2083420The Lord has established His throne in the heaven and His sovereignty rules over all (Ps. 103:19).

The 1990s may very well become known to future historians as the decade of Christians in civil government. Even more so than in the 1980s, the evangelical church has had a greater voice in the political process. The full impact of this surging tide will not be felt until the 1998 and 2000 elections and beyond.

For those who are mobilizing for action at the grass roots level, it will become increasingly important to lay a foundation based on biblical law and to avoid building party platforms based on populist conservatism. Those entrusted with the vision to rebuild a Christian democratic republic must be aware that the blueprint for reforming civil government is given only in the Word of God.

Over the past 30 years, American evangelicals began to cast off the pietistic notion that political involvement is somehow worldly. Christians regained a sense of history through studying America’s Puritan heritage. They awakened to the fact that the church is to be the salt and light of the world, and realized that they had a God-given mandate to possess the gates of the city.

But then something went awry on the way to the new millennium …

The view of 21st century America envisioned by some modern evangelicals resembles more the nostalgic television reruns of the 1950s than the powerful transforming spiritual awakenings of past centuries. The view of civil government offered by modern Christian activists resembles more closely that of the mystics of the Middle Ages who viewed politics as Satan’s domain. They have obscured the view offered by our Puritan forefathers who saw government as an institution given by God to be reformed by His chosen elect.

Two Views of Government

There are essentially two views of government that have been held to by two groups of evangelical Christians in modern times—the Puritan or Reformed view (based on the ideals of the Protestant Reformation), and the Pietist view.

1. The Puritan view of government: All people are under a two-fold theocratic form of government (ecclesiastical and civil). The church legislates the moral law of God through the preaching of blessings and curses found in God’s Word (the Bible); the state enforces the moral law of God through a system of reward and punishment. Believers obey the moral law of God out of love and are subject to church discipline; sinners obey out of constraint and fear of punishment by civil judges. But both classes of men are to be ruled by the moral law of God. Human government is an institution given by God to be cared for and reformed by men.

The Puritan historical view of government is providential, with Jesus Christ leading believers in His train as a captain leads an army to victory over the anti-Christian power bases of the world. The ultimate destiny of government is to establish Christ’s dominion over all the earth with God’s people ruling in positions of power. Christ will return to the earth when all things are subject to Him under His feet (the church). The role of the elect is to occupy the power bases of both ecclesiastical and civil forms of government until He comes to establish greater justice.

2. The Pietist view of government: Christians are under the authority of both church and civil government; sinners are under the authority of civil government only. The moral law of God rules over Christians; but since sinners are doomed to hell, they are free to do whatever they please. Civil government is a part of the world system which is controlled by Satan. It is no surprise to the pietist that so many governments are unjust and evil.

The Pietist historical view of government is conspiratorial. Government is a part of the world system which is controlled by Satan and his cohorts. The conspiracy will end in a one-world government ruled by an anti-Christ figure who will control the hearts and minds of men for a dispensational time period. The only job for the church is to preach the gospel so that some may be saved. The job of Christians in civil government is limited since politics is evil. Christians have to wait until Christ returns to the earth with cataclysmic judgment before they can rule as the elect.

The Puritan view of history and government is what resulted in America being founded as a Christian democratic republic. Throughout the early years of America’s history, the plan for civil government was based on the ideals of the Protestant Reformation. As America was being explored, the Reformation was still very much in progress.

The theology developed during the 1500s by men such as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Knox was adopted by an enlightened few in the Church of England. These were the Separatists (or Pilgrims) and the Puritans. By the early 1600s, when the Pilgrims and Puritans began their exodus to Massachusetts Bay Colony, the ideals of the Reformation had taken hold of most of northern Europe. Yet the Reformation had its fullest expression in America.

The biblical model of reformation for church and civil government was pioneered by the Pilgrims and Puritans who settled America. This was the foundation for our democratic republic. Although Christianity in America has become increasingly diverse, every reform movement of consequence throughout American history has been neo-Puritan in character. This was true of the First Great Awakening during the time of Jonathan Edwards, and also of the sporadic revivals of the 1800s which resulted in societal transformation.

Although the Christian foundation of American society has eroded today, most retain a feeling of pride that we are somehow different as a nation. We somehow believe that freedom in the world today sprang from our nation. We believe that our country is the best place in the world to live. Yet today most have an uneasy feeling that something is dreadfully wrong with us. If we are to retain today the ideals that once made us great as a nation, we need to examine our origins in order to discover the source of this problem.

Two Strains of the Reformation

To better understand how Christian Americans arrived at their present state, it will be useful to take a brief look at the schools of thought within the Reformation which were prevalent during the founding of America. These two strains have been present in the church since the beginning of the Reformation in the 1500s. The Protestant Reformation occurred mostly in the 16th and 17th centuries and involved two groups of reformers. There were also two strains of the Reformation which we will call the Pietists and the Puritans.

As we look at the two strains of the Reformation, we should remember that there is truth and error in each. All orthodox church movements have emphasized some aspect of truth. We are not talking about two different Gospels here. Each is trying to teach the same Gospel, even though at times their emphasis will be a warped, limited, or partial one. We need to study each, keeping in mind that no movement or particular sect of Christianity has yet come completely out of the darkness of human depravity.

Consider the words of John Robinson to his congregation before the Pilgrims left to come to America: “If God should reveal any thing to us by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it, as ever we were to receive truth … (for) it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”

The Pietists

Pietism is a term describing not one specific church group, but a broader movement which began in the late 17th century. In earlier centuries, Pietism is discernible in medieval Roman Catholic mysticism and the Anabaptist movement. Anabaptists were reformers who believed that baptism should occur after repentance and salvation (hence the term ana-“after” baptism). Anabaptists are sometimes called “the radical reformers.”

The Anabaptist movement was a manifestation of a continuing mysticism in Christianity which had always been present in the church. These were often persecuted Christians who were impressed by the extreme wickedness of the world and sought to withdraw into communities of believers. They wanted to have as little to do with civil government and the military as possible. Some Anabaptist communities refused cooperation with civil authority entirely.1

In the early centuries, Montanists, Marcionites, Novatians, and various forms of Monasticism were in this mystical tradition. In the Middle Ages, the Paulicians, the Waldensees, and the Lollards were continuations of what later became known at the time of the Reformation as the Anabaptist movement. Mysticism is the belief that revelation can come directly from God. This belief was present in the early church and continues to this day. Mystics look to the “inner light” of the Holy Spirit as the guiding source of salvation.2

There is validity for supernatural operations of grace and personal piety within the framework of biblical orthodoxy. The problem with mysticism is that it often leads to “extra-biblical” revelation. There is no doubt that there have been many true Christians among the Anabaptists. The problem has not been with conversion experience, but with the frequent doctrinal errors which came from a reliance on extra-biblical revelation. Many of the teachings proposed by the Anabaptists were based more on subjective experience than the Word of God.

One of the earliest of the mystics among the Anabaptists was Sebastian Franck, a contemporary of Luther. Franck rebelled against what he deemed excessive emphasis on the written Word. He taught that a divine element existed in all men, and emphasized the inner working of the Spirit as the means to salvation.3 An early center of the Anabaptist movement was Zurich, Switzerland. Here Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz led a group of radical reformers who went much further away from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church than other Protestants. The movement spread to Austria and southeast Germany. Many missionaries were sent out to other parts of Europe and gathered Anabaptist communities.4

While having received some valid biblical truth, such as adult water baptism, one of the frequent mystical extra-biblical errors of the Anabaptists regarded predictions concerning the imminent return of Christ.

Melchior Hoffman, a Swabian furrier, predicted that after his death he would return, in 1533, with Christ in the clouds of heaven, that the wicked would be judged, and the New Jerusalem would be set up in Strassburg.5

Jan Mathys, a baker from Holland, predicted that Munster was to be the site of the New Jerusalem. He sought to gain control of Munster and organize a Christian society. The deposed bishop of that city, aided by Catholics and Lutherans, laid siege to the Anabaptists and had the leaders tortured and killed.6

Hans Hetz, a German, proclaimed that the day of the Lord was near and that the saints were to use force in rooting out the wicked before the visible reign of Christ was set up on earth.7

Michael Servetus, a Spanish scholar (not specifically an Anabaptist), believed that the millennial reign of Christ was about to begin and was later burned at the stake in Geneva for teaching heresies.8

The Anabaptists were often violently persecuted, but their movement survived. In England, Independents and Quakers developed out of the Anabaptist strain. In Germany and the low countries, the Mennonites and Amish were pacifistic Anabaptists who survived persecutions. They were later welcomed in Russia and America because of their industry and thrift.

Pietism, as mysticism’s modern expression, arose out of the tragedy of the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, which was a conflict between the Pope and the Reformers. The Reformers won, however, the war left most of Germany devastated. Philip Jacob Spener, a Lutheran minister seeking to comfort the people of Germany, emphasized the mystical side of Luther’s teachings. Spener hoped to cultivate a deeper spiritual life among his flock. He preached the necessity of the new birth and a personal, warm Christian experience. Pietism soon spread rapidly throughout Europe via Lutheran churches.9

Pietism had its positive effect by infusing a sense of personal experience with Jesus Christ in the life of a believer. This emphasis helped the cause of evangelism. Those among the Pietists who helped spread Christianity worldwide were Count Leopold von Zinzendorf, founder of the Moravian Missionary Society, which sent hundreds of missionaries to America; Roger Williams, a Baptist, who founded Rhode Island after being expelled from Massachusetts by the Puritans; and the Quakers, George Fox and William Penn, who founded colonies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The negative aspects of pietistic thinking are: a withdrawal of Christians from society because of the belief that the world is Satan’s domain, and an emphasis on the imminent return of Christ with a preoccupation with date-setting for the Second Coming.

The Puritans

The strengths of Puritan or Reformed thinking are: the belief that Christ rules over every sphere of society with Christians being stewards of the earth; and having a long term view of Christ’s return with an emphasis on advancing the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

The Puritans came from the Reformed tradition. The fathers of Reformed theology were Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox. Unlike Martin Luther, who had mystical, pietistic leanings, the Puritans tended to be more Calvinistic in their thinking.

The Puritans who arrived in America had already absorbed a century of accumulated Reformation doctrine. The Puritans were Anglican Church reformers who adopted John Calvin’s theology. They were the English version of the Scottish Presbyterians. They were a part of a reformation that was still very much in progress. Yet, at the time of their arrival in the New World, the Puritans had a vision for a society built on the laws of God.

They had broken away from Episcopalian government—but not completely away from the Church of England—and now sought to create a theocratic government. They disclaimed the divine authority of lords and bishops and believed in the priesthood of the individual believer. As each believer was to be self-governing, so was each church; each family; each community; each township; each colony; etc.

The Puritans saw themselves as soldiers in a war against Satan. This small band of believers struggled against adversity to build the City of God in New England. They saw all of human history as a progression toward the fulfillment of God’s design on earth.10

Unlike the pietistic Anabaptists, the Puritans had a long term view of history, they generally regarded the Second Coming of Christ to be far off, and they were optimistic about the attempts of Christians to reform civil government. The founders of New England were not social radicals. They disliked bishops and so they came to America to set up the City of Zion. In their doctrine of covenantalism, they saw God bringing in the kingdom in a gradual and orderly fashion. They understood that the Second Coming of Christ would not happen for centuries to come. They understood that it was their role in society to be visible saints, to submit to church discipline, and to be the light of the world.11

Neo-Puritanism

The contribution of the First Great Awakening was a revitalized “neo-Puritanism”—a combining of personal experience with God with the complete biblical worldview of the Puritans. The Great Awakening began under the ministries of Gilbert Tennent, Jonathan Edwards, and English evangelist George Whitefield in the early 1700s. These three personalities were strictly Calvinistic in their view of salvation yet they preached in such a way as to awaken sinners to a state of grace.

The mass conversions that took place during the Great Awakening were undergirded by the Puritan ethic which had been developed in the preceding centuries. It was the strength of the Reformed view of biblical social order combined with personal experience with God that led to the reformation of American society. The Great Awakening did much also to unite the thirteen colonies. This union resulted in the establishment of the United States of America a generation later. The Great Awakening encouraged people to look optimistically at life in America. The revivals of the 18th century promoted the idea that the “city set upon a hill for all the world to see” was still viable.

By 1830, what America is today as a nation had become well defined, reformed, and constituted. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French social scientist, recorded in his classic work, Democracy in America, that Americans exhibited certain distinctions that set them apart from Europeans. It was as if God Himself had formed a new race of men and women on the earth. American idealism was so unique that it warranted an investigation. According to de Tocqueville, American idealism was characterized by individualism—a self-reliant spirit that pushed individuals to take on great responsibilities and produce great accomplishments. There was a sense of a personal responsibility to God, country, and family. These were, in fact, Puritan ethics.

According to church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette: “In 1815, the Christianity of the United States, like that of the Thirteen Colonies, was still overwhelmingly Protestant…. Even more than in the Thirteen Colonies, it was showing a marked variety. To the denominations brought from Europe, several were being added. Some were divisions from the old and others were quite new. Still more than in colonial days, the Christianity of the United States represented the extreme wing of Protestantism.“12

Neo-Puritanism can thus be defined as a blending together of the ethics and worldview of the Puritans with the methods of power evangelism which added great numbers of souls to the American churches during the Great Awakenings.

The Shift Away From Neo-Puritanism

The shift away from neo-Puritanism began in the 1830s when the competing worldview of dispensationalism emerged giving Pietism a systematic theology.

Dispensationalism: The idea that God has worked in different ways throughout history through different economies or dispensations. A dispensationalist makes a major division between the Covenants, God acting with wrath and vengeance in the Old Testament and with love and grace in the New Testament. Dispensationalism teaches a pre-tribulational rapture, divides the “end times” into several dispensations, and teaches a conspiratorial view of history.

John Nelson Darby, an Irish priest (Anglican), organized a more numerous group called the Plymouth Brethren. Darby taught that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. He rejected the creeds of the early church and believed that social reform is useless. Darby’s followers concentrated on saving men and women out of the world.

C.I. Scofield, a Texas pastor, popularized the teachings of J.N. Darby in a systematic theology known as dispensational premillennialism. C.I. Scofield first compiled his reference Bible as a teaching aid for missionaries. It soon became one of the most widely used tools for Bible study among entire denominations such as Southern Baptists and Disciples of Christ.13

Antinomianism

Despite the fact that many of the dispensationalists stressed personal holiness, the paradigm shift of the 1800s paved the way for a much greater evil, antinomianism, which means literally “anti-law.”

Antinomianism: an anti-law position which states that man is saved by faith alone; since faith frees the Christian from the law, he is no longer bound to obey the law. Antinomianism creates a system in which the laws of the Bible cannot apply to governing an individual or society.

Dispensationalism promoted antinomian thinking by de-emphasizing the relationship of the Old Covenant law to the individual. This led to a waning influence of Christians in society.

To the Puritans, covenantalism and the law of God were obvious foundations of Christian social order. Two Puritan ideas stand in stark contrast to dispensationalism and antinomianism: covenantalism and theonomy.

Covenantalism

Covenant theology laid the groundwork for a political theory which held that state and all society came into being as a contract on the basis of God’s eternal covenant. Hence, the moral law of God must be the foundation for a society’s laws and government.

Covenantalism: The Puritans held to covenant or “federalist” theology which maintains that God operates through covenants, or eternally binding legal agreements with men. The Old and New Covenants are God’s basis for governing the universe. There is no division between the Covenants. The New Covenant is built firmly on the foundation of the Old Covenant. This presupposes that the Law does not change: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). God is not a dispensational, evolving God; He is a God that never changes: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

Covenantalism stands in stark opposition to the modern notion of antinomianism. Covenantalism begins with the assumption that the believer is no longer condemned by the law but justified by faith. But unlike antinomianism it answers the obvious question: Once a man is saved, is he restored to a position of law keeping or not? Yes! Although the law can never help a man do this!

Bq. God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4).

The work of the cross of the New Covenant is the destruction of “sin in the flesh.” Once the propensity to sin is destroyed, sin is gone and the law no longer condemns us. The law is not primarily for the regenerated believer, but for the unbeliever to reveal his sin. However, this does not mean that the Covenant of the Law has passed away.

Theonomy

The Bible teaches us that the law is eternally binding as the standard of sanctification for both the individual and society. The Reformers and the Puritans believed that the church and the kingdom of God are subject to God’s laws. In turn, it is the church’s mandate to advance the kingdom of God on earth. This includes legislating the moral law of God in the nations. This concept is known as theonomy which means literally: “God’s law.”

Theonomy: The belief that the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding in the New Testament age. God’s law is the standard for personal, family, ecclesiastical, and civil righteousness. Civil governments are obligated to follow the moral laws outlined in the Bible. Theonomy asserts that only laws which are specifically fulfilled or changed in the New Covenant—such as dietary laws, agricultural laws, Sabbath laws, and ceremonial laws—are non-binding in the New Covenant age. Moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments and the case laws, are still the ethical standards for governing individuals and society.

Civil governments are obligated to follow God’s moral laws. If they are not, then Christians have no real standards by which to influence legislation. There is no other standard besides the moral law of God to effect the reformation of America except democratic pluralism: What the majority thinks is right in their own eyes.14

Democratic pluralism has led us to the current state of affairs in our nation. In early America, especially in the Puritan townships, there was a type of theocratic pluralism, or democracy under the moral laws of God.

The law itself is holy and good; but it cannot make anyone, Jew or Gentile, holy or spiritual. As long as a man is carnal, the law spells death. It is only through grace that we fulfill the law. Furthermore, no system of law can ever sanctify a society. However, when society’s laws are based on God’s laws, they can serve to teach an entire civilization about the character of God and lead some to salvation. The moral law of God serves as the standard of sanctification. According to Calvin:

From these things one can gather … the function and the use of the law…. While showing God’s righteousness, that is, what God requires of us, it admonishes each one of his unrighteousness and convicts him of sin. All men, without exception, are puffed up with insane confidence in their own powers, unless the Lord proves their vanity. When all this stupid opinion of their own power has been laid aside, they must needs know they stand and are upheld by God’s hand alone. Again since by righteousness of their works they are aroused against God’s grace, it is fitting that this arrogance be cast down and confounded that, naked and empty-handed, they may flee to God’s mercy, repose in it, hide within it and seize upon it alone for righteousness and merit. For God’s mercy is revealed in Christ to all who seek and wait upon it with true faith.15

What we experience as a nation in the next few years will largely depend on the obedience of the church to the Word of God. It will depend on evangelicals making the necessary paradigm shift toward a vibrant, robust neo-Puritanism.

“Who knows whether you are called into the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14).

Jay Rogers is the director of The Forerunner. He can be contacted at The Forerunner, P.O. Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713.

]]>
Jay Rogers2008-05-01T15:29:12Z2014-03-08T16:04:05ZDeclaration of Dependence: A Strategy to Reclaim Americatag:www.forerunner.com,2008-05-01:b4f7db3c952314d71e48d97c7bdc2a73/001813d5f33757a114ba6db320113ca6
A few years ago, I was asked by representatives of the Alliance for Revival and Reformation to draft a “Declaration of Dependence.” This document is an outline of the strategy to clearly define and reclaim America as a Christian nation. This is a restatement of the Declaration of Independence, and it follows a Puritan covenantal outline.

As a Christian publisher and a multimedia missionary, my vision has always been to bring revival and reformation to America. The revival I speak of includes a spiritual awakening of all of society. I am convinced such an all-encompassing spiritual awakening and reformation of society must necessarily divide America into two camps: Neo-Puritans and Neo-Pagans. Proposing that America was founded as, and should be again, a Christian nation will bring us into conflict with liberal humanists and even those in the church who are committed to a pietistic ideology of neutrality.

In rewriting the Declaration of Independence, I’ve tried to hold to a covenantal model. Therefore, I’ve inserted some of the language of the preamble of the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut because it establishes our national republic as pre-existent in covenantally founded commonwealths. The Orders and other colonial charters and compacts are still binding on the individual states today. Usurpation of the Orders by the king of England was one reason for the War for Independence.

What follows is the draft of the Declaration, but we are asking for critiques, questions, and suggestions for changes in the text. Those interested in promoting the plan to circulate a Declaration of Dependence among America’s Christian leaders, should contact me at the address given at the end of this article.

The circulation of this Declaration of Dependence should be in the context of an ongoing discussion among those who hold to some bare minimum standards for orthodoxy, a covenantal worldview, and Knoxian and Cromwellian models for resistance. This discussion is leading us somewhere. We are definitely headed in a clear direction. Many Christians are new to covenantal theology. We are still hashing it out in our minds. However, we have a destination—the City of God on earth as it is in heaven.

God has a covenantal strategy for His people to reclaim America. In any war, first you need a worthy cause. Then you need to find worthy allies who will be loyal in the fight for the long term. Then you need a workable strategy which will result in success.

The battle for America is a covenantal battle. It is a battle between two allegiances: those who would restore America to a Christian republic under the lordship of Jesus Christ and the liberal humanists who believe man is sovereign. It’s a battle between those who stand for the law of God and those who do not. It’s a battle between Neo-Puritans and Neo-Pagans.

The battle in the church is also a covenantal battle. It’s a battle between orthodox covenantal theology and heterodox dispensational theology. It is a battle between those who hold to a victorious ecclesiology, the lordship of Jesus Christ over the totality of human life—and those who believe we are predestined for defeat, that the earth belongs to the devil and the antichrist. It’s a battle between the “Confessing Church,” those who believe Jesus is Lord over all the earth in time and history—and dispensationalists and liberals, those who will not confess that Jesus is now Lord over all.

There are many fronts in each battle. The enemies of Christ will fight us. Others in the church will try to remain “neutral.” But we must realize from the outset that there is no neutrality. The strategy we must begin to outline is a Knoxian method of resistance. John Knox and the Scottish covenanters used a definite strategy to depose Mary, Queen of Scots and the Roman Catholic Church from their unlawful oppression of Scotland in the 1500s. One hundred years later, Oliver Cromwell destroyed once and for all the idea of “the divine right of kings” in Western Christian civilization.

In the 1700s, America was founded on Knoxian-Cromwellian social theory. We can restore America to greatness in the 21st century by adapting some of their methods.

We can be successful with even a few thousand churches and ministries in strategic regional zones of influence committed to long term battle to restore the Christian republic. It will happen sooner once the lines of battle are drawn.

Defining the Battle Lines

This is a proposal to draft and redact a series of documents or “prayer proclamations” that prominent Christian leaders in America would be asked to sign. The idea is to divide the church in America into two camps:

1. Those who are committed to the battle for the Christian republic, and

2. Those who are committed to “the myth of neutrality” or who are openly opposed to rebuilding a Christian nation.

We would discern the two camps by drafting a series of documents or “prayer proclamations” following the covenantal structure of Deuteronomy 28 and 29. Pastors and elders of churches would be asked to pray along these lines. They would pray God’s blessings and curses upon specific individuals and institutions in America. They would be given a study program to use in teaching their churches. And then they would be called upon to act when the opportunity arises.

Each of these prayer proclamations would be submitted to a list of well-known Christian leaders. We would publish two lists: the first list would be the Christian leaders who signed; the second list would be those who refused to sign. So as to negate the possibility of oversight and second thoughts, leaders may sign on and sign off on each list at any time. The current lists would be available on request by mail, as press releases, and posted on the Internet. We will publish two lists because we want it to be known who are the allies in the battle for the Christian republic and who are not. We would ask people to contact the Christian leaders who are not allies with us and ask them, “Why not?” Yet this is a deadly serious strategy. We are calling people to martyrdom if the need arises. So the call to action is not a light game or a gimmick.

We would then invite pastors and elders of churches and leaders of Christian ministries to sign. These men first declare that they hold to a bare minimum standard of orthodoxy. For our purposes, we would use the Coalition On Revival’s foundational document for the church: The 42 Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview (42 general statements of the Christian faith which all denominations may agree upon).

They will also be asked to read, understand, and educate their flock using the following documents: The 25 Articles on the Kingdom of God — A Manifesto for the Christian Church (a statement on where the Church should stand on important issues and a rationale for activism), and The 17 Worldview Documents (statements on how to apply the Bible to every field of life).

The goal is to convene a National Synod of the Confessing Church in America in the years 2003, 2005, 2007 to further strategize for total victory. This synod would be open to church leaders who are signers of the 42 Articles. These would be leaders who want to go to the next step —the Confessing Church’s “marching orders” for the next successive two years after each national synod.

Between now and 2003, we want to establish our “New Model Army” from those churches and ministries who have agreed to fight using Knoxian and Cromwellian models for resistance. A spiritual army will be organized to rebuild America upon the principles of the Bible. Our vision is to see Christians everywhere doing all they can to take every sphere of society captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

A Declaration of Dependence

The following is a restatement of the Declaration of Independence, which follows a roughly Puritan covenantal outline. The Declaration of Dependence is more explicitly Christian. The plan is to ask Christian leaders all over America to sign this Declaration. We would begin with local presbyteries in regional zones. We would work at the local and state level for six months to a year promoting the plan and collecting signatures for the document. We would then ask state political leaders to sign.

After critical mass is gained at the local level we would call the most prominent nationally known church leaders from all over the nation to sign. We would then call our national civil leaders to confirm the covenant that binds all men to the lordship of Jesus Christ. All national leaders at the federal level, the Supreme Court, Congress and President would also be called upon to sign the Declaration of Dependence Upon God. We will keep two lists: those who sign and those who refuse.

A DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCEUPONGOD

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to declare their dependence upon God, and to reaffirm their national Christian covenant to which the laws of God bind them, an appropriate response to God requires that they should declare before mankind the causes which bind them to this covenant.

We hold these biblical truths, that all men are created equal, in that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain rights not to be violated by any power foreign or domestic. Among these rights are life, liberty, and property. The possibility of human rights is found only under God, who through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, has set before us either life or death, blessing or cursing, corresponding to our faith and subsequent obedience to His commandments.

For as much as it pleased Almighty God by His wise Providence to institute governments among men, God requires that to maintain peace and union of a people there should be an orderly and appropriate Government established according to God’s Law. That to secure these rights, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, this government derives its representation from the people and their representatives have the power to administer justice according to the Word of God.

That whenever any form of government becomes disobedient and destructive of these ends, it is the responsibility of the people to resist it according to the Word of God, to pray for God’s mercy, to affirm their national covenant with God, restoring the nation’s foundation according to God’s Law. The Word of God, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes nor violently cast off in lawless revolutions. Accordingly, the Bible has shown that God’s people are enjoined to bear patiently under His hand of discipline, while evils are sufferable, rather than avenge themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to separate them from their national covenant with God and reduce them under absolute despotism, it is the right — nay, it is the duty —of duly ordained Christian leaders in church and state to reprove such government and to restore those biblical forms that will ensure their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States, and such is now the necessity that constrains them to reform their present system of government. The history of the present civil rulers in this country is, for the most part, a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the casting away of the Law of God and establishment of an absolute tyranny of religious humanism over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world….

1. Where God’s Law states that we shall not murder, and our national covenant guarantees the right to life, through the tyrannical imposition of abortion on demand they have slain in excess of 35 million unborn infants.

2. They have refused their assent to laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

3. They have obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing to limit their judicial decrees to the stated intent of either the Constitution or the Bible.

4. They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

5. They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their assent to acts of pretended legislation.

6. For exporting child murder to foreign nations through American citizens’ tax monies.

7. For promoting sexual immorality among government officials by appointing men and women of low moral character, even sodomites, to position of high ruling power.

8. For establishing laws which interfere with the free practice of religion and worship in public life.

9. For promoting works of blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ through federal subsidies.

10. For regulating the American citizen’s free right to bear arms.

11. For involving us in entangling alliances with foreign nations.

12. For using United Nations organizations to promote tyranny abroad and rule over American citizens without our consent.

13. For imposing taxes on us through deceit and trickery and without our consent.

15. For more than doubling the divinely condemned tax of 20 percent that the tyrant Pharaoh imposed on the children of God.

16. For depriving us, in many cases, (especially those related to taxation) of the benefits of trial by jury.

17. For weakening our own legislatures, and declaring their own bureaucracies invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

18. For creating a welfare state that does not require the poor to work in order to eat.

19. For monopolizing numerous systems of public commerce by supporting them through taxation while excessively regulating and taxing private business enterprises under the guise of lawful government.

20. For promoting the myths of pluralism, religious neutrality, and primary reliance upon man-made laws over biblical law, which has steadily eroded, as it inevitably will, into rank humanism and lawlessness.

21. They are at this time advancing a comprehensive program—legislative, economic, and cultural—to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

22. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant—which rules apart from Divine authority—is unfit to govern the affairs of a Christian people.

Nor have we been wanting in appeals to our representatives. We have warned them from time to time, of their attempts to extend an unbiblical jurisdiction over us and have participated in the election of leaders professing to restrain this abuse, to no avail. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our ancestors’ emigration, settlement, and foundation here as a biblical commonwealth governed according to the Word of God. We have appealed to their sense of justice and goodness, and we have pleaded with them as our representatives to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably bring our nation under God’s judgment. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and peace. We must, therefore, declare our full obedience and dependence on God and His unchanging eternal Law, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, in rebellion as adversaries, in submission as God friends.

We, the Christian citizens of the United States of America, thankfully acknowledge God’s faithfulness towards us and the permission to choose our civil rulers, which God entrusts and grants as a privilege. Therefore, we repent of having allowed ungodliness and conceit to rule over our nation rather than having chosen wise and godly rulers. We pray that God Almighty would dash the conceits of all those who shall oppose His eternal moral laws. We are persuaded, as God has given us the liberty, to now faithfully maintain it. As God has spared our lives, and has given us life and liberty, we pledge to seek the guidance of God, and to choose civil authorities that will rule under God.

We, therefore, the ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Christian citizens of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of right ought to be one nation under God, and that our representatives must swear allegiance to govern according to His Word, and that, as a nation covenanted to God, they will have full power to perform those duties which covenanted nations must of biblical warrant do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the favor and protection of the Lord of Hosts, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

In Defense of the Declaration of Independence

On close examination of the text of the Declaration of Independence, it may seem to a covenantally-minded Christian, that some of the wording is humanistic. But because the language of the Declaration of Independence is archaic in some places, the words themselves have changed meaning. We might assume that the language is humanistic, when it is not really so.

I will briefly examine three such examples of archaic wordings that are often misinterpreted as the result of Enlightenment humanism: “inalienable rights”—“self-evident truths”—“decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Inalienable Rights. What is an “inalienable” right? We assume that it is a right that is not to be alienated, but “to alienate” in this sense means surrendered to a foreign or alien power. We have come to think that inalienable means “innate” or “immutable” or “not to be taken away”—but what this phrase really means is that life, liberty, and property is protected under a commonwealth or a national government. It does not necessarily mean that every person is born with these rights. That is the idea in the “right to property” which was changed to “the pursuit of happiness” by slave owners. Any person has a God given right to secure property unless he is guilty of a crime that requires restitution. However, “the pursuit of happiness” is an innocuous meaningless term of compromise. I disagree with the choice of the delegates who changed the meaning of the Declaration here. However, the main intent of the phrase, “inalienable rights…life liberty and property,” is to ensure that rights will be protected by a local or national civil government and not subject to a foreign power. This is one more evidence that the colonists saw themselves to be self-governing even before the time of the signing of the Declaration. Therefore the conflict of 1775 was not a revolution, but a war for independence.

Self-Evident Truths. Contrary to the criticism of some detractors of the Declaration, there is no “self-evident truth” in the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” “Self” here refers to the subject “we” and not “the truths” in and of themselves. Truth can be evident only to a person. Truth embodied by a person, Jesus Christ, is the only “self-evident” truth. Even the meaning of the word “evident” is archaic here too. We think of “evident” as meaning “revealed to be true” or as “evidence.” The root meaning of evident is “to see.” Self-evident means simply clear to the vision. So we could say in our modern usage, “We hold these truths to be clear to the understanding.”

Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind. Also archaic is the word “decent.” The Founders did not intend to say that they were under some humanistic “requirement” to respect the opinions of man and not God. Decent does not mean “fair” or “moral,” but “appropriate” or “fitting.” They wanted to give “decent” respect to the opinions of mankind, or in other words, they were declaring their “appropriate response to questions that might arise to this Declaration of Independence.” Further, the Founders wanted to preserve a government that would be “decent” or fitting to the governed, that is, a representational government.

Since these meanings are obscure, I’ve tried to make them more clear in the text of the Declaration of Dependence rather than reversing their humanistic interpretations.

Jay Rogers is the director of The Forerunner International, and the editor of The Forerunner. He can be reached at The Forerunner, P.O. Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713, or at jrogers@forerunner.com.

]]>
Jay Rogers2008-05-01T15:28:22Z2014-03-08T16:04:59ZPolitics as Usual, or Biblical Law?tag:www.forerunner.com,2008-05-01:b4f7db3c952314d71e48d97c7bdc2a73/abccfbf5b8720d7ff3cc977222e5da28
If you are a true Christian who loves God with your whole heart and hates sin with your whole heart, then you are increasingly dismayed at the increasing godlessness in American society. Many Christians in recent years have realized that America’s early history was steeped in a high form of biblical Christianity. Godliness among our leaders continued until the beginning of this century.

In the 20th century, we have become, as Dr. Francis Schaeffer put it, “a post-Christian nation,” not because of the superiority of the enemy, but because of the default of the church. Some Christians have adopted a fatalistic view of the future. Their view seems to be: “We are predestined to fail; society is predestined to get worse and worse.” The only strategy for resistance to increasing godlessness then becomes to “run up our bills for the Antichrist.”

Since the 1970s, however, many Christians have realized that the reformation of society is necessary. These people have been comprised of mainly two groups: liberals and conservatives. These two groups are distinguished by their political affiliations and their view of the infallibility of the Word of God. Evangelicals who want to change America include the conservative Pat Robertson (representing the Religious Right) and the liberal Jesse Jackson (representing the Religious Left).

But there is a third group: those Christians who believe it is their responsibility to challenge the anti-Christian character of society and culture, not with a political agenda, but with the law of God. This smaller, yet fast emerging group sees it as an obligation to seek to change society in ways that will bring it into conformity with the moral law of God.

If we want to build a society without abortion, without homosexuality, with family values, and with godly schools, then we are wasting our time if we adopt any other strategy besides the standard of God’s holy Word. The plan for rebuilding a society includes the following priorities:

1. bringing a significant portion of the population to personal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ,
2. the advancement of the kingdom of God through the preaching of the Gospel and the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and
3. the application of biblical law as a standard to all areas of life.

The failure among liberal and conservative Christians to change America has been due to a popular, yet false, idea which views the moral law of God as primitive, sub-Christian, anti-Christian, and irrelevant to contemporary Christian ethics.

This false ideology has come in the form of the separation in our minds of “sacred vs. secular” and suspicion directed at Christians involved in social and political activism. These prejudices have led many Christians to abandon any attempt to influence government and society. This continues to be the norm today, with the notable exception of so-called “family values” issues like abortion, school prayer, home schooling, and homosexuality, but even then rarely is a Christian voice heard except in protest.

If we want to rid our nation of abortion, and other ungodly evils, then our agenda must be larger than that. Our goal must be nothing less than a Christian nation ruled by God’s moral law.

We can begin by laying emphasis on the church’s “salt and light” (Matt. 5:13-14) functions in society, and calling the church to repentance for her neglect of these God-given duties. We must challenge our fellow Christians to reengage the society daily.

We must fight against the tendency to (totally) privatize our Christian faith. There is, of course, a vital private side to the Christian faith, as all Christians would agree. The Puritans, for instance, would have called this “experimental religion” while Roman Catholics call it “spiritual formation.” This is an essential element to vital Christianity. If it is not there, then faith is dead. Yet when Christianity is reduced to purely individual, personal spirituality, an important aspect of Christianity is lost. There are also the outward demands of true Christian piety—the obedience to the law of God.

We must seek to utterly destroy the anti-law spirit which pervades churches where the teaching of “cheap-grace” is the norm. In many churches, even the suggestion that Christians have an obligation to keep the moral law is considered an attack on the teaching on grace. In our day, the church must return to teachings on

1. the grace within God’s law,
2. the role of God’s law as the standard in the Christian life, and
3. the relevance of biblical law to society.

In this call for Christian political and social action, however, we need to keep the emphasis squarely on the Word of God and not the agenda of any political group! Therefore, we must advocate the implementation of biblical law in modern society and the law’s prescribed sanctions.

What would such a “Christian America” look like? The following are some elements of a biblical law approach to civil law and order:

2. It provides a moral basis and standard for elective government officials.

3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation.

4. It calls for the reduction of the prison system into a system of just restitution for victims of crimes.

5. It forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution.

6. It forbids industrial pollution that may harm people or destroy the value of other people’s property.

7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits.

8. It forbids abortion rights. Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.

9. It commands the nation to welcome foreigners and legal immigrants.

The believer’s calling to be a transformer of society has always been standard in historic Christianity. Every believer has been given the charge to be salt and light in society. We must take those salt and light functions seriously. The Christian’s ethical responsibility to the law of God extends beyond the simple personal observation of those laws. More than just obeying God’s commandments personally, the Christian is expected to promote the keeping of God’s law in society.

More than just being involved in a few “hot-button” issues, biblical Christians must develop a comprehensive biblical worldview which can explain exactly how God’s Word can be applied to changing society on all levels.

Bibliography: Kenneth L. Gentry, God’s Law in the Modern World, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1993.

Jay Rogers is the director of The Forerunner International, and the editor of The Forerunner. He can be reached at The Forerunner, P.O. Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713, or at jrogers@forerunner.com.

BOSTON, Massachusetts – A Suffolk County courthouse worker made an astonishing find on a July day in 1996. While cleaning out a file cabinet, Supreme Judicial Court clerk Richard Rouse stumbled on one-of-a-kind hand written manuscripts. The two leather bound volumes contain proceedings detailing Puritan prosecutions of witches, adulterers, and slaves. The decayed, fraying records provide students of the Puritan theocracy an astonishing look at Massachusetts’ civil law proceedings spanning the years 1673 to 1695.

One of the volumes was first discovered in 1901 and the proceedings were hand copied for use by historians and scholars. No one knows how the volume was lost again, but the second volume, which details dozens of more cases, is of more interest because state archivists believe that it is the first time that it has ever been discovered. These court proceedings of civil trials from the years 1673 to 1695 were unavailable for study until now.

Modern theonomists, those who study biblical law’s application to modern society, are interested in Puritan New England as an example of a working theonomic government. Theonomists would like to find in Puritan America a model of liberty under the law of God applied to the civil and religious spheres. The Massachusetts Puritans saw themselves as a theocracy: literally, “a government under God.” The language describing the proceedings is brimming with biblical allusions. However, the judgments often stray from strict applications of biblical law, nor is there frequent reference to Scripture as the basis for the judgments rendered.

The following are samples of cases, including witchcraft and adultery, found in the Record of the Court of Assistants, Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1673 to 1692, which were published in the Boston Herald on July 9, 1996.1 These cases have never before been available for study. The 17th century spelling of words and punctuation, which was not yet standardized, has been preserved in order to maintain absolute accuracy of transcription from the handwritten manuscripts.

Elisabeth Johnson wickedly, feloniously and maliciously a covenant with the Devill did make by which diabolical covenant she gave herself both soule and body to the Devill and signed the Devill’s book and by him was baptized and under him renounced her Christian baptism and God and Christ and owned the Devill to be her God and promised to serve and obey him forever, by which wicked covenant thee the said Elisabeth Johnson is become a detestable witch. [Note: This charge was later dropped. Johnson and others accused of witchcraft were acquitted.]

Ruth Reed being Committed to prison & brought to the barr to Answer for that having binn about fowe yeares in England absent from hir husband and bringing wth hir a child of About two yeares old affirming that she received it at Brandford in England that August in Lyndon who changing his name to John Rogers & hirselfe by the name of Robekah Rogers as she also Affirmed betweene whom seuerall letters wickedly (as if man & wife had passed between them which are on file, and that John Rogers told hir the childs name was John Rogers and most impudently there parts imposing the sajd child on hir husband Wm Read The Court sentenct the sajd Ruth Reed that named hirself Rebeckah Rogers if found in this Colony two month after this date that shee stands in the markett place on a stoole for one hower wth a paper on hir breast wth y inscription THUS I STANDFOR MY ADVLTEROUSANDWHORISHCARRIAGE and that on a lecture day nex after the lecture and then be seuerely whipt wth thirty stripes.

Samuel Guile of Hauerill being Committed to Prison in order to his tryall for Committing a Rape was presented & Indicted by the Grand Jury was brought from the prison to the barr where holding vp his hand was Indicted by the name of Samuel Guile for not having the fear of God before his eyes & being Instigated by the divill did on or about the 25th day of December last in the woods violently & forcibly seize on & Comitt a rape on the body of Mary Ash the wife of John Ash of Amesbury Contrary to the peace of our Soueraigne Lord the King his Croune & dignity of the lawes of God & of this jurisdiction = to which he pleaded not Guilty and put himself on God & the Country = After the indictment & euidences were Read Comitted to the jury & are on file with the Reccords of this Court the Jury brought in yir verdict they found the prisone at the barr Guilty & he accordingly had a sentenc pronounct ag him yow Sam Guile are to Goe from hence to y place from whence yo came & thence to y place of execution & there be hang till yow be dead wch was accordingly donn 16 October 1675. = Six pounds eighteen shillings allowed for y Tresurer to pay newberry men as witnesses out of the state of sajd Guile in his power as also out of the estate to pay unto Mary Ash fiue pounds.

Amy Wellen the indictment being found ag hir by the Grand jury was brought to y barr Refusing to object ag any of y jury trialls holding vp hir hand at y barr was Indicted by y name of Amy Wellen wife to Richard Wellen for not having the feare of god before hir eyes did sometime(s) the last spring being whin a twelve moneth being instigated by the divill comitt Adultery wth Glandfeild of black point in the house of willjam Buttyn of black point Contary to y peace of our Soueraigne Lord his Croune & dignity the lawes of God & of this jurisdiction to wch Indictment she pleaded not guilty & put hirself on tryall by God & the Country After y Indictment & euidences in the Case produced ag the prisoner at the barr were read Comitted to the jury & are on file wth the Reccords of this Cour The Grand Jury found hir not Guilty = & so she was dismist = The Grand Jury finding the like bill ag Jn Glandfeild of black point he was alike tried for Comitting adultery wth Amy Wellen mutatis mutan(dis) & on hearing of all y ev idences he jury found him not Guilty as above & he was (also) dismist.

Modern theonomists will immediately notice that the Massachusetts Puritan’s approach to civil law was mixed. It remains for some ambitious student or historian to cull from the complete trial proceedings the genuine cases of theonomy and to compile a critique of when and how they missed the mark. For the sake of brevity here, I simply conclude that although the Puritans aimed at a theocratic and theonomic ideal, they did not achieve it. An honest historical view must take note of their failure as well as their success.

Theocracy of Ancient Israel: Pattern for Colonial New England

Theonomy is a term for the belief that the moral law of God is to be applied as a standard of righteousness for governing individuals and society. The term comes from the Greek for “God’s law” and is the concept that all of the moral laws (those excluding the non-ceremonial and dietary laws) given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch are binding on people of all nations forever. Theonomy posits God’s law as the only just standard for regulations in every human institution: family, church, and state.

Theocracy is the term for a nation ruled by God and God’s law. Theocracy does not imply rule of the state by the church. The proper term here would be an ecclesiocracy. Although the church and the state are separate spheres of government, both are to be ruled by God’s law.

Detractors of theonomy and theocracy like to argue that the civil law and its sanctions were limited to Old Covenant Israel because there was no separation of church and state in Israel’s theocracy. Even a casual survey of the law of Moses disproves this conjecture. The Old Covenant commands that “alien and sojourners” in Israel, even those who were uncircumcised heathen, were bound to the civil law (Lev. 24:22).

Yet these foreigners were not required to keep most of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law (Ex. 12:43,44,48; 9:33; Deut. 14:21). Only the circumcised were allowed to participate in the Passover, the old covenant communion meal. The two “marks of the covenant” separated members of the “church” from members of the “state.” There was also a separation between the priests of the ceremonial law, the Levites, and the magistrates of the civil law, the elders and judges (Lev. 14:35; 27:11; Deut. 1:16; 16:18; 19:12; 21:2; 25:1).

In the New Covenant, the primary purpose of the church is to minister God’s grace in the world. Christ’s commission to the church was to preach salvation to the nations (Matt. 28:18-20). The Apostles were given the keys of the kingdom and the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, in order to carry out the Great Commission. The state is to be a minister of justice (Rom. 13:1-7). It alone is given the sword of power to execute vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the civil sphere. The church is never to control civil government, but may instruct state proceedings with biblical counsel (Deut. 17:8-13). The church is also expected to train godly men for civil leadership.

The problem, of course, with the colonial Massachusetts “theocracy” was that it was not a true theocracy with separation of powers, but an ecclesiocracy. Cotton Mather wrote: “Yet, after all…in this world a Church-State was impossible, whereinto there enters nothing which defiles.”

On the other hand, it was this experiment with self-government which finally led to the emancipation of the colonies from the tyranny of the British crown in later years. In all fairness to the Massachusetts Puritans, we must realize that they came to the New World at a time when the Protestant Reformation was still very much in progress in England. A unifying and comprehensive church confession describing the relationship between church and state had not been adopted. Connecticut, Plymouth, and Rhode Island experimented with alternate forms of theocracy.

According to 19th century Harvard historian John Fiske: “The spirit in which the Hebrew prophet rebuked and humbled an idolatrous king was a spirit they could comprehend. Such a spirit was sure to manifest itself in cramping measures and in ugly acts of persecution; but it is none the less the fortunate alliance of that fervid religious enthusiasm with the Englishman’s love of self government that our modern freedom owes its existence.” 2

Modern theonomists can neither completely defend the rigidity of the Massachusetts Bay Colony nor completely disparage the attempts towards a godly separation of powers by Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony. A more honest approach would be to settle on the example of civil liberty found in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.

The United States Constitution owes allegiance to Thomas Hooker, more than any other man, for providing a working model of decentralized government, one which had not appeared on the face of the earth since the time of the ancient Hebrews.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was the first biblical covenant in modern times which founded a federal government. The Mayflower Compact was not a constitution, in that it did not define and limit the functions of government. The Magna Charta had the nature of a written constitution because it described the rights of the people, but it did not create a civil government.

This constitution states that Connecticut is submitted to the “Savior and Lord.” There are none of the patronizing references to a “dread sovereign” or a “gracious king” nor the slightest allusion to the authority of British government or any other government over the colony. It presumes Connecticut to be self-governing. It does not describe church membership as a condition for suffrage. In this federation, all powers not granted to the General Court remained in the towns. Each township had equal representation in the General Court. The governor and the council were chosen by a majority vote of the people with almost universal suffrage.

In his sermon to the General Court, May 31, 1638, Hooker said, “The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people…the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance…they who have power to appoint officers and magistrates have the right also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them.”

John Fiske writes: “It was the first written constitution known to history, that created a government, and it marked the beginnings of the American republic, of which Thomas Hooker deserves more than any other man to be called the father. The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies.” 3

The Hebrew Commonwealth: A Model for Separation of Powers

Christian leaders at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution supported the division of church and state, with no sphere of government impinging upon another sphere. There is a reason why America’s Christian leaders did not seek a return to a government administered by a king.

It was prophesied to the people of Israel by Samuel that this form of government would soon become intrusive (1 Sam. 8). There was to be no monarch but King Jesus. God commanded the model of government instituted by Moses, with tribal elders moderating civil disputes and the Levitical priests enforcing the covenant within the confines of the Tabernacle.

Some have called this model the “Hebrew Commonwealth” and have seen our present constitutional model of government as based on this ideal. In fact, a sermon preached in 1788 had the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in mind: The Republic of the Israelites An Example to the American States by Samuel Langdon. Langdon was prominent in securing the adoption of the Constitution as a delegate to the New Hampshire state convention in 1788.

The New Hampshire Congregationalist minister argues that Deuteronomy 4:5 is a model for our American republic. Thus, in the words of Langdon, we have proof that some representatives who ratified our Constitution were men who believed that: “the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; …. Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.” 4

The Old Covenant basis for the representative congress, the senate, the judicial system, the order of military, the religious and ceremonial observances, the different and weaker forms of government which succeeded that commanded by Moses, and the complete revelation supplied by Jesus Christ, are all expounded on by Langdon and then applied to the newly birthed American Republic. There are comparisons between Moses as Israelite general and Washington as our military leader, the twelve tribes and our thirteen colonies. Soon after this sermon was published the U.S. Constitution was ratified by New Hampshire.

Contribution of the First Great Awakening

Puritanism was carried into our form of civil government through the First Great Awakening by the waking up of the minds of all classes. The Awakening produced a general discussion of the principles of freedom and human rights, the habit of contending for rights with religious zeal, and the preparation of the mind for all questions pertaining to civil government in the American colonies. The very word “constitution” was carried into America’s political discussion by the Puritans. To the Puritan mind, “constitution” is synonymous with “covenant” or “compact.”

We can view the First Great Awakening of 1740 as the impetus for issuing the Declaration of Independence to King George III in 1776. While it would be stretching the truth to say that the Declaration of Independence was a civil covenant, it is obvious that the structure of the document had Puritan covenantalism in mind.

Although it is true that there was a strong deistic influence at the time of the signing of the Declaration, there is no question that there were the residual effects of strong Puritan influence. The American Revolution could not have occurred without the 150-year-old Puritan foundation in America.

Thomas Jefferson, a man described by his contemporaries as “a French infidel in respect to religion,” was indebted to the Puritans for his model of civil government. The evangelical explosion of the Great Awakening in Puritan New England provided the seeds for the first Baptist churches to be planted in Episcopal Virginia, which held to a Calvinistic theology and a congregational form of church government. Jefferson gained his first clear idea of a republican government from seeing the congregationalism of a Baptist church in his vicinity. It was good politics, too, since he strengthened his state party’s stance among the people through an alliance with the Baptists and all friends of religious freedom. 5

The Jeffersonian distinction between church and state is very different from the idea promoted in our day. The very phrase “separation of church and state” is very misleading. It is not a constitutional phrase but it came afterward in the writings of Jefferson. It originated as a Calvinist/Puritan distinction between the spheres of authority of church and civil government.

The church and the state are separate spheres of governmental authority. Separation of church and state does not mean separation of the civil sphere from God and God’s law.

The issue is not whether the church should intrude on the state’s affairs. The church should not. Neither should the state intrude on the church’s affairs. But Jesus Christ intercedes in the affairs of both. Civil government is not secular, it still stands under the moral Law of God. This was the understanding of many American legislators until the 20th century.